God of the Gaps (reject, creation, experience, atheist, faith)

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

But bringing up the God of the Gaps argument demonstrates that person has a blind absolute faith that science will eventually answer any question about the world around us. No matter how inconceivable or absurd the possibility that natural, indifferent processes are responsible for some event, this person will reject the idea that God had anything to do with it. Just in the principle of it. What it really is is a rejection of God and has little to do with scientific evidence.

First off, empirical evidential inquiry has in fact discovered material mechanisms that account for a wide variety of natural phenomena: heredity, disease, the weather, fermentation, the movement of celestial bodies, the diversity of modern species, and so on. What you call 'the idea that God had anything to do with it' hasn't really been much help in explaining the material basis of natural phenomena. So, as many have pointed out previously in this thread, the expectation that scientific methodology will eventually lead to a discovery about the causes of a natural phenomenon is hardly 'blind absolute faith.'

But the fallacy has a more fundamental flaw than its statistical one. God-of-the-gaps thinking presupposes not only that naturalism won't lead to a discovery about the causes of phenomenon X, but also that scientific methodology is by definition inadequate to investigate phenomenon X. No God-of-the-gaps proponent (including the oft-quoted Michael Behe) has ever been able to point out what it is about methodological naturalism that renders it useless in explaining phenomenon X. There's no verifiable evidence that would lead us to believe that natural law has ever been nullified by a miraculous act. If natural law were in fact so prone to such cessations, there's no reason to believe that scientific methodology would be useful in the first place.

So God-of-the-gaps thinking becomes a common rhetorical ploy in conspiracy theories. Pointing out anomalies in current understanding can be made to resemble a commitment to honest inquiry. However, it's really just a way to make people waste time speculating about a perceived gap in our understanding. When the gap is filled, the debate merely moves onto the next gap.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

I was speaking also of the apparent faith in science. There are MANY who truly believe that science will answer everything. That is a great faith indeed.

So basically, we have gaps in our knowledge of the way the universe works.

We can fill these gaps with God (goddidit) or with science (which provides testable explanations with which we can make predictions that will allow us to make us of the way the universe works, like how we can use the fact that things start to glow if you get them to the right temperature in order to make flashlights).

Not only does science provide us with a more useful answer, but science has a much better track record.

Of all the things in the past which were unexplainable, how many have been shown to have a scientific explanation? And how many have been shown to be impossible and the only explanation is goddidit?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

What is the science-of-the-gaps argument?

"Just because" and "chance" and "nonsensical question" (like what was there before the Big Bang?)

[Troublemane]

In my case I believe God is reality itself, all of existence. So my God has no problem with natural law, because it/he/she is totally one with natural law. When I think of God I think of it as the amazingly elegant and prolific regenerative power of the universe to complexify and evolve itself.

I think the difficulty of trying to see this "God-in-the-Gaps" comes due to people (theists) who declare God is separate and distinct from creation, because they have unwittingly accepted the dualistic ideal of equating temporal reality with imperfection...therefore if God is perfect He must be separate from temporal reality. So we are then to believe that the cosmos is split between two realities? One of faith and one of reason?
I dont think so!

[logician]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

In my case I believe God is reality itself, all of existence. So my Gon has no problem with natural law, because it/he/she is totally one with natural law. When I think of God I think of it as the amazingly elegant and prolific regenerative power of the universe to complexify and evolve itself.

I think the difficulty of trying to see this "God-in-the-Gaps" comes due to people (theists) who declare God is separate and distinct from creation, because they have unwittingly accepted the dualistic ideal of equating temporal reality with imperfection...therefore if God is perfect He must be separate from temporal reality. So we are then to believe that the cosmos is split between two realities? One of faith and one of reason?
I dont think so!

Please specif\y what you mean by the universe evolving itself, the universe is chaotic, and really not that friendly to life forms.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by logician

Please specif\y what you mean by the universe evolving itself, the universe is chaotic, and really not that friendly to life forms.

There you go with your negative assumptions again.

Why not assume that trypanosomes, liver flukes, and retroviruses are in fact blessings from the Almighty Basis of All Being?

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

There you go with your negative assumptions again.

Why not assume that trypanosomes, liver flukes, and retroviruses are in fact blessings from the Almighty Basis of All Being?

You forgot to include our POTUS Bush in the list of blessings.

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by logician

Please specif\y what you mean by the universe evolving itself, the universe is chaotic, and really not that friendly to life forms.

The universe went from a primal energy-point into a vast, complex ensemble of atoms which then evolved into more complex molecules which then condensed into planets and complex chemicals from which arose life, from which came all living things (as are so far known), from which cam humanity, from which came the various races, from which came the various peoples/nations/cultures/languages, from which came the ability to communicate, form governemts, regulate trade, discover electricity, create computers, invent the internet (thank u al gore!), invent RF, which lead to this post

All this came from a simple form splitting into differnt parts which then recombine to form a more complex thing. Thats all there is to evolution, but I agree the end is not determined. Only the fact that universe continues/maintains itself by re-using what it made before in ever-newer, more complex combinations. This will possibly be soon recognized as a universal law, like gravitation.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

You forgot to include our POTUS Bush in the list of blessings.

I was using 'liver fluke' as a general term.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

I was using 'liver fluke' as a general term.

I don't think liver flukes really deserve that kind of verbal abuse.